RELIEF FROM DECISION GRANTED: February 23, 1994
                                                           
 
 
                            GSBCA 12700-P-R
 
 
                    STANLEY COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.,
 
                                           Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                      DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
 
                                           Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                       ADVANCED MANAGEMENT, INC.,
 
                                           Intervenor.
 
        Gerald N. Gordon of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Los
   Angeles, CA, counsel for Protester. 
 
        William  P. McGinnies and Marc  J. Weinberger, Office of the
   Chief Counsel, United  States Customs Service, Department  of the
   Treasury, counsel for Respondent.
 
        Claude  P. Goddard,  Jr., and  Leslie H.  Lepow of  Jenner &
   Block, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor.
 
   Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), HYATT, and GOODMAN.
 
   DANIELS, Board Judge.
 
        On  February  16,  1994,  we granted  a  protest  by Stanley
   Computer Systems, Inc. (Stanley), against the award of a contract
   by the United  States Customs Service (Customs), a  bureau of the
   Department of the  Treasury, to Advanced Management,  Inc. (AMI).
   The  contract  is  for data  entry  services  and other  computer
   support requirements.   We found that as alleged  by Stanley, AMI
   engaged  in  a  bait-and-switch  scheme:  it  misrepresented  the
   availability  of  "key personnel"  in  its proposal  in  order to
   obtain the contract.  Consequently, we held that Customs violated
   requirements  of statute and  regulation in  making the  award to
   AMI.  As a  remedy for this violation, we revoked  the delegation
   of procurement authority  (DPA) under which the  General Services
   Administration   (GSA)   permitted   Customs  to   conduct   this
   procurement.  
 
 
        On February  23,  Customs filed  a  motion for  relief  from
   decision, pursuant  to Rule  33.  In  the motion,  Customs states
   that  the  DPA   under  which  this  procurement   was  conducted
   authorizes Customs to acquire data entry and other automatic data
   processing  support services  throughout the  United  States, but
   that  the  protested  procurement  involves  acquisition of  such
   services only in the Eastern region of the country.  Customs asks
   that the revocation  of procurement authority  be limited to  the
   subject  procurement, such that  Customs may continue  to acquire
   such   services  in  the  rest  of  the  country  without  direct
   supervision by GSA.   Customs represents  that the other  parties
   have  no objection  to our  modifying  our order  in the  fashion
   requested.
 
        The agency procurement request on  which the DPA is based is
   not a part of the record in this case.  See Protest File, Exhibit
   D.  However it may read, we did not intend to remove from Customs
   the authority  to do anything  other than  conduct the  protested
   procurement  and administer the  contract which results  from it.
   Consequently, we clarify  that our order in this  case applies to
   no more than the authority delegated to Customs by GSA to acquire
   data entry and other services in Customs' Eastern region. 
 
                                Decision
 
        The motion for  relief from decision is GRANTED.   Our order
   is clarified in the manner stated.
 
                                      _________________________
                                      STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                      Board Judge
 
   We concur:
   _________________________          _________________________
   CATHERINE B. HYATT                 ALLAN H. GOODMAN
   Board Judge                        Board Judge